In re Falco

Good Law
176 Cal. App. 3d 1161·1986 Cal. App. LEXIS 2510·222 Cal. Rptr. 648
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJanuary 28, 1986No. A032559; No. A032627; No. A032684; No. A032751California1,850 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Racanelli, J.

*1163 Opinion

SUMMARY

By these several petitions consolidated for decision, petitioners Christopher Falco, Roy E. Smith, Michael Punzal and Andrea Bowen challenge sentences imposed on them on the grounds that such sentences exceeded the terms of their plea bargains, contravened the requirements of Penal Code section 1192.5 1 and otherwise deprived them of due process of law. The superior court, while expressly acknowledging that the actual sentences imposed were contrary to the terms of the negotiated plea bargains, sought to justify its sentencing actions on the basis that petitioners’ failure to appear at the times set for sentencing constituted a breach of the plea bargains, forfeiting their right to withdraw their pleas and to specific performance of the original conditional plea agreements. For reasons which we will explain, we order the writs to issue and remand to respondent court with directions.

Background

The relevant procedural and factual background is essentially undisputed and may be summarized as follows:

Falco was originally charged in two counts with violations of the Health and Safety Code. On July 24, 1985, he pled guilty to a violation of Health and…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.